Dismissed

Sureshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2016Crl.MC/4201/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash 498A proceedings for dowry harassment, the Court held that the complaint and final report established an offence and dismissed the petition, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC dismissed; trial court directed to conclude trial within eight months.

Sureshkumar Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4201 of 2013

¶6

CC 2801/2012 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

SURESHKUMAR K., AGED 40 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.C.K.KRISHNAN, CHEETHAV VEEDU, AYALOOR.P.O.

¶10

NENMARA, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD,

¶11

DEVAKI, AGED 63 YEARS W/O.C.K.KRISHNAN, CHEETHAV VEEDU, AYALOOR.P.O. NENMARA, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶12

BINDHU, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O..C.K.KRISHNAN, CHEETHAV VEEDU, AYALOOR.P.O.

¶13

NENMARA, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD

¶14

BY ADVS.SMT.V.SHYLAJA SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I POLICE, NENMARA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶17

ADDL.R2

¶18

REENA .S. AGED 35 YEARS,, D/O SIVASANKARAN, PUTHANPURAYKKAL VEEDU, KOTTAPALLAM, KOTTEKKADU P.O., PALAKKAD, MALAMPUZHA

¶19

(Impleaded as addl.R2 as per order dated 16.7.2014 in Crl.M.A.8664 of 2013 )

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BABY THOMAS

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 4201 of 2013

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

ANNEXURES

¶26

A- CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR

¶27

B- FINAL REPORT IN C.C.2801 OF 2012 PENDING BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-III, PALAKKAD.

¶28

C- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PRODUCED BY R2 BEFORE THE JFCM -III, PALAKKAD.

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

P.S.To Judge

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶32

- - - - Crl.M.C.4201 of 2013

¶33

- - - - Dated 21^st March, 2016

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

1.In this petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶37

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to quash all further proceedings in C.C.2801 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Palakkad.

¶38

2.The 1^st petitioner is the son of the 2^nd petitioner

¶39

and the 3^rd petitioner is his sister. The 2^nd respondent is the wife of the 1^st petitioner. The

¶40

2^nd respondent has preferred Annexure-C complaint before the learned Magistrate and investigation was ordered on its basis under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later, Annexure-B final report was laid against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 498A read with

¶41

Crl.M.C.4201/13

¶42

¶43

Section 34 of the IPC.

¶44

3.The case of the 2^nd respondent is that, the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent was solemnized on 23.1.2005. No issues were born in the wedlock. According to the 2^nd respondent, 26 sovereigns of gold was handed over to the petitioners and after solemnization of marriage, the 2^nd respondent stayed along with the petitioners. It has been specifically alleged in the complaint that after solemnization of the marriage, petitioners had tortured the de facto complainant both mentally and physically demanding valuables. Specific allegations are raised with regards to acts of physical cruelty. This according to the 2^nd respondent is for the purpose of coercing her to meet the illegal demands of the petitioners.

¶45

Crl.M.C.4201/13

¶46

¶47

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶48

5.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the allegations are all bereft of truth. The 2^nd respondent is a serving police woman and her attempt is only to harass her husband and in-laws. The investigating officer who has laid the final report has not placed the true facts before court. It is further submitted that the 2^nd petitioner is aged and ailing and the 3^rd respondent is living elsewhere with her family. They may not be driven to face a malicious prosecution is the submission of the learned counsel.

¶49

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that specific

¶50

Crl.M.C.4201/13

¶51

¶52

allegations are leveled in the complaint and the police, after conducting exhaustive investigation has concluded that the offense was made out and it was in pursuance to the same that Annexure-B final report was laid before court. It is specifically asserted by the learned counsel that the final report would reveal that after the solemnization of marriage on 23.1.2005, on numerous occasions, petitioners had subjected the 2^nd respondent to matrimonial cruelty. According to the learned counsel, since there are specific allegations in the complaint, this Court will not be justified in exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code to bring the proceedings to a termination.

¶53

7.I have considered the rival submissions and

¶54

have perused the final report and connected documents.

¶55

Crl.M.C.4201/13

¶56

¶57

8.It is by now settled that when a prosecution is sought to be quashed at the initial stage, the test to be applied by the Court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint or final report establish the offence. If on a prima facie perusal of the records, it is borne out that foundation of criminal case is laid against the petitioners, this Court will not be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. Unfortunately for the petitioners, they have not been able to pass those tests.

¶58

9.At the same time, since it is submitted by the

¶59

Crl.M.C.4201/13

¶60

¶61

learned counsel that the 2^nd petitioner is an

¶62

aged lady and the 3^rd petitioner is residing elsewhere, it is for the petitioners to file an application under Section 205 of the Code, seeking personal exemption. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same, on its merits, taking note of the peculiar facts of the instant case.

¶63

10.In the result, this petition is dismissed. In

¶64

view of the fact that the case is of the year 2012, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶67

Mrcs/21.3.2016

Sureshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala

Gino Augustine Vs the State of Kerala

P.Rajagopalan Vs P.C.Jose

Remya Vs Saradhi Motor Finance